Where the assessee suo motu filed returns as “agent” of a non-resident but no assessment was made and after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year a notice under section 148 of the Act seeking to assess the income and the question arose whether the said notice was barred by limitation u/s 149 (3), HELD:
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record o the case. The short dispute is whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of AS-7, is to be allowed in the year in which the contract has been entered into or it is to be spread over a period of contract, as was done by the assessee in earlier years
19. We have given careful thought to the rival submissions of the parties and examined them in the light of material available on record, statutory provisions and case law cited at the Bar. At the very outset, we may state that the basic contention of the assessee that he is and should be considered as an agent under clauses (a), (b) & (c) u/s 163(1) of the Act, is misplaced
6. Section 54EC provides that where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long term capital asset and the assessee has at any time within a period of six months after the date of such transfer, invested the whole or any part of capital gains in the long term specified asset, the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this section, that is to say, if the cost of the long term specified asset
30. In our opinion, the assessee must succeed on his Ground. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee being an employer made the valuation of the perquisite provided to Mr. Brian Brown at Rs. 90,40,880/-. The definition of the salary is given in section 17 of the Act and as per the said definition salary includes perquisites. The perquisites in its normal meaning means direct and indirect benefits
Where during a survey, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 29 lakhs towards “any other discrepancy” but later retracted from the same and the question arose whether the assessee could be assessed despite the said retraction,
7. Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully. The question for our consideration is whether the income accruing to the assessee should be assessed as `business income’ as claimed by the assessee or partly as `income from house property’ and partly as `income from other sources’ as held by the Assessing Officer Officer. At the outset, we may mention that the Assessing Officer has committed
Gopal Purohit v. JCIT- The delivery based transaction should be treated as of the nature of investment transactions and profit there from should be treated as short-term capital gain or long term capital gain depending upon the period of holding; employment of an infrastructure so as to keep a track of the developments in the share market cannot turn an investment activity into a business activity.
32. In order to attract section 194D, the commission or any other payment covered under the section should be a remuneration or reward for soliciting or procuring the insurance business. The insurance companies do not procure business for the assessee company nor does the assessee company pay commission or other payment for soliciting the business from the insurance companies.
6.9 Right to review is a creature of statute as is right of appeal. The income-tax Act does not confer any power on the appellate authority, to review its own order. A review is not a substitute for an appeal, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Finance & Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Raj) 324; (1980) 125 ITR 404 (Raj). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Globe Transport Corporation
